1. On December 10, 2014, the Defendant imposed acquisition tax of KRW 68,426,880 on the Plaintiff and special rural development tax of KRW 6,842,660 on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) was established on September 24, 2009, and C was an internal director from September 24, 2009 to November 21, 201.

B. The shareholder registry of B entered into a contract with C to purchase and sell shares of KRW 2,000 per share as to the shares of KRW 2,000 per share (hereinafter “instant shares”) between C and C on November 21, 201, and on the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell shares of KRW 10,000 per share as to the shares of KRW 2,000 per share, and held KRW 100 per share under the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. On September 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff acquired the instant shares through the said transfer, thereby becoming an oligopolistic shareholder, and acquired B’s property, such as real estate, pursuant to Article 7(5) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same), and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 68,426,80 (including additional taxes); (c) special rural development tax of KRW 6,842,660 (including additional taxes); and (d) on October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a pre-assessment request with the Standing Governor on the basis of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12153, Nov. 12, 2014; and (d) was not adopted on September 15, 2014.

On December 10, 2014, the Defendant imposed and notified acquisition tax of KRW 68,426,880 on the Plaintiff and special rural development tax of KRW 6,842,660 on the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) e.

On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Gyeongbuk-do Governor, but was dismissed on April 9, 2015.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry and whole purport of pleading of Evidence A, Evidence A, and Evidence A (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff’s establishment of B, the beneficial shareholder of the instant shares was the Plaintiff, and C was merely the shareholder in the form of title trust received from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is existing that the Plaintiff changed the shares of this case in the name of the Plaintiff.